Although I loved studying about the British monarchy at school, I think it's loosing its vlaue over the years. I mean , we are in the democracy age, I dont see why the monarchy should "rule" [not that they do it really]. By all means, keep the monarchy as a memory and a peice of a history, but let the "demos" rule.

But I am against the concept of a monarchy. Our Dutch queen really just has a purely ceremonial function nowadays so she really is pretty much 'harmless'. But... Officially she still has the right to veto any decision the government makes. Of course she'd have a HUGE problem if she'd actually use that right... But still, it's not very democratic. And besides that, our royal family costs 113,9 million euros of our tax money per year, even though our queen Beatrix has an estimated fortune of 2,5 billion euros...

Gawd bless Her Magesty!Outdated maybe, but consider the revolutions, civil wars, fascists, communists, dictators and absolute-monarchists that that have stalked the history of almost every other nation* these past 300 odd years and we're obviously doing something right. (* except the Scandies and the Lowlanders. But wait, aren't they also constitutional monarchies?? )

The British queen has the right to choose a prime minister, dissolve parliament, and declare war. Actually she never exercises her rights. In a democracy a leader is determined by elections, which means the queen does not choose a prime minister and can`t do it. Isn`t it better to abolish these rights of hers instead of pretending they exist? The situation is hypocritical, isn`t it?

I've always liked the Queen , think she's done the job of head of state really well .Having said that i would like her to be the last .I would like to see a republic of England , think the UK will breakup in the next fifty years .

I think the Monarchy is more of a "figure head" type thing to carry on the grand British traditions. "Just for looks", IMHO............correct me please if you don't agree............but doesn't the Prime Minister and House of Commons and all that "jazz" run the country. I just know about this crazy American "politicking"...........

Considering what the Tudors, et al, did to Ireland--and what the Hanoverians did to spread the "Empire" around the Globe, I pretty much hate the institution of the monarchy. I think England would be a much different place today if they'd let their kings die with Charles I and never have gone through a Restoration (course I blame Cromwell and his roundhead zealots for that). Although the US has much to answer for in re. its imperialism and exploitation of various peoples (not to mention the virtual genocide of the Native Americans), it pales in comparison to the global hegemony practiced by the Empire from the 17th to 20th Centuries. In fact, much of the world is still f***ed up (like the Middle East, Iraq, deliberately divided up by Churchill to be unstable) because of British rule. I guess you can't blame a monarchy for all those things, but those empty-headed twits represent the system. Bush's vacuity during Katrina is nothing compared to Victoria and the British response to the Irish potato famines in the 1840s. Victoria and her ministers allowed one million Irish die and essentially forced another million to immigrate (depopulating almost one fourth of the island). While it wasn't a systematic genocide like the Jewish holocaust under the Nazis, it makes George Bush look like Mother Teresa.

But I still love the Beatles (who had alot of Celtic blood in them), but Paul should never have written that silly song or accepted that silly knighthood, considering what the Empire did to his Irish forebears.

The British queen has the right to choose a prime minister, dissolve parliament, and declare war. Actually she never exercises her rights. In a democracy a leader is determined by elections, which means the queen does not choose a prime minister and can`t do it. Isn`t it better to abolish these rights of hers instead of pretending they exist? The situation is hypocritical, isn`t it?

But I could argue that it's much better to have a Head of State outside the political game, therefore any appointments she makes could be regarded as impartial and not politically biased.Remember - it was an elected Head Of State German President Hindenburg who appointed the Vegetarian Hitler as German chancellor.Damn the Democratic Vegetarian Cabal. They'll be the death of us all.

But I still love the Beatles (who had alot of Celtic blood in them), but Paul should never have written that silly song or accepted that silly knighthood, considering what the Empire did to his Irish forebears.

Then should not native and black americans refuse to accept honours from the US government because of the enslavement, oppression, wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing inflicted upon them. Not to mention the invasion of Canada (1812) and wars of agression and annexation against Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898) and the two hundred thousand (some sources have it much higher) or so Phillopinos killed when the locals rose up against the occupation. Do you really believe that the US behaved better to those people who stood in its way of expansion because it had an elected head of state?That Britain's monarchy killed more than the US presidents is nothing more than matters of scale. Stalin and Mao each killed many more than Hitler, so by your logic right wing totalitarian regimes are better than those from the left? Surely empires are the evil thing, whatever their ilk.

Then should not native and black americans refuse to accept honours from the US government because of the enslavement, oppression, wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing inflicted upon them. Not to mention the invasion of Canada (1812) and wars of agression and annexation against Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898) and the two hundred thousand (some sources have it much higher) or so Phillopinos killed when the locals rose up against the occupation. Do you really believe that the US behaved better to those people who stood in its way of expansion because it had an elected head of state?That Britain's monarchy killed more than the US presidents is nothing more than matters of scale. Stalin and Mao each killed many more than Hitler, so by your logic right wing totalitarian regimes are better than those from the left? Surely empires are the evil thing, whatever their ilk.

If killing lots of people is what makes empires evil, then surely "non-empires" countries can just as easily be considered evil. The Darfur murderers, the Butcher of Sarajevo, the little dictators of central America in the eighties ... any number of non-empire leaders have killed many people. If one suggests that matters of scale are not as important as the atrocity of the acts themselves, it becomes difficult to limit the description of "evil" to "empires". So does that statement need to be expanded to say "All countries/governments are the evil things", because some of them have perpetrated atrocities? That sounds a little drastic, but as long as matters of scale are discounted, it seems if the one is true, so is the other. Carrying it further - since human interaction at any level - empire/country/city/family/interaction between two strangers - can result in evil acts, does that mean that "all humans are the evil thing"?

Beyond that, is it really undisputable that "empires are ... evil.."? Is it beyond discussion that the Roman Empire was "evil", without also considering its contribution to the advancement of Western Civilization? Similarly for the Chinese empires and their contributions towards civilization? Is there a threshold of sorts, a balance between the overall good vs "evil" associated with an empire that must be crossed before an empire is considered evil, or do "empire" and "evil" always go hand in glove?

I hate people who think they are superior to all others by birth.So I hate the monarchy.Here in France people think the British Queen is quaint... because they don't have one! I imagine it's the same in the US.

I hate people who think they are superior to all others by birth.So I hate the monarchy.Here in France people think the British Queen is quaint... because they don't have one! I imagine it's the same in the US.

I wonder if they nowadays still think they are superior by birth, or if they just consider themselves extremely lucky, and getting away with something they shouldn't be able to?

As you`ve had said, Alexis, people in a democracy are born with the idea (principle) one person-one vote. Can you imagine any other situation for you? So the members of the royal family are born with the idea of superiority, they do not think they are superior, they know it! There`s a world of difference between thinking you`ve got it and knowing it, having it as something indispensable, in the blood.

It`s hard for us (outsiders) to judge about the monarchy in Britain. On the face of things it seems to be harmless, beautiful, impressive. As for me I would like the British monarchy to remain forever. But what do the actual taxpayers think, do they have to provide for the royal family, and is it really a burden? Or does it give more to the country than take from it? Nevertheless it can`t give more than take from the ordinary taxpayers.

As you`ve had said, Alexis, people in a democracy are born with the idea (principle) one person-one vote. Can you imagine any other situation for you? So the members of the royal family are born with the idea of superiority, they do not think they are superior, they know it! There`s a world of difference between thinking you`ve got it and knowing it, having it as something indispensable, in the blood.

It`s hard for us (outsiders) to judge about the monarchy in Britain. On the face of things it seems to be harmless, beautiful, impressive. As for me I would like the British monarchy to remain forever. But what do the actual taxpayers think, do they have to provide for the royal family, and is it really a burden? Or does it give more to the country than take from it? Nevertheless it can`t give more than take from the ordinary taxpayers.

I can't imagine, but I can rue my misfortune for being born a commoner